MINISTERS’ DEPUTIES

Notes on the Agenda

CM/Notes/1406/H46-26

9 June 2021

1406th meeting, 7-9 June 2021 (DH) Human rights   H46-26 Catan and Others group v. Russian Federation (Application No. 43370/04) Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments Reference documents CM/ResDH(2014)184, CM/ResDH(2015)46, CM/ResDH(2015)157, CM/ResDH(2020)183, CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-25

 

Application	Case	Judgment of	Final on	Indicator for the classification
43370/04+	CATAN AND OTHERS[1]	19/10/2012	Grand Chamber	Complex problem
30003/04	BOBEICO AND OTHERS1	23/10/2018	23/10/2018
40942/14	IOVCEV AND OTHERS1	17/09/2019	17/09/2019

Case description

These cases concern violations of the rights of children, parents and staff members of Latin-script schools located in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova during the years 2002-2004 (Catan and Others, Bobeico and Others) and 2013-2014 (Iovcev and Others).

The European Court observed that there was no evidence of any direct participation by Russian agents in the measures taken against the applicants, nor of Russian involvement in or approbation for the language policy of the “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” (“MRT”) in general. Nonetheless, it held that the Russian Federation exercised effective control over the “MRT" during the periods in question and that by virtue of its continued military, economic and political support for the “MRT”, which could not otherwise survive, the Russian Federation incurred responsibility under the Convention for the violation of the applicants’ rights.

Pursuant to the “MRT” law on languages, the applicant pupils suffered from the forced closure of these schools and various measures of harassment, in breach of their right of access to educational institutions existing at a given time and to be educated in their national language, which was also their mother tongue, and in breach of their parents’ right to ensure their children’s education in accordance with their philosophical convictions (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 by the Russian Federation). In Iovcev and Others the Court held also that measures of harassment by the “MRT” authorities violated the right to respect for the private lives of ten members of school staff (violation of Article 8 by the Russian Federation) and that arrest and searches of three staff members by the “MRT” authorities was unlawful (violations of Article 5 § 1 and Article 8 by the Russian Federation).

Status of execution

The Committee has been regularly examining the case of Catan and others at DH meetings since December 2013 and has adopted four interim resolutions (CM/ResDH(2014)184, CM/ResDH(2015)46, CM/ResDH(2015)157 and CM/ResDH(2020)183). In the most recent interim resolution, adopted during the Committee’s last examination of this group in September 2020 (1377bis meeting, 1-3 September 2020 (DH)), the Committee noted with deep regret that, while nearly eight years had passed since the delivery of the first judgment, the Russian authorities had failed to arrive at an acceptable response as to the execution thereof and the Committee’s call to present an action plan setting out the concrete measures to execute the judgments in this group.

The Committee reiterated with firm insistence the unconditional obligation of every respondent State, under Article 46 paragraph 1 of the Convention, to abide by final judgments and strongly urged the authorities to pay the just satisfaction and default interest owing to the applicants without further delay, as well as to provide an action plan setting out their concrete proposals as regards the execution of these judgments in time for the Committee’s next examination at its DH meeting in March 2021. At its 1398^th meeting (March 2021) (DH), the Committee decided to postpone examination of this group to its 1406^th meeting in June 2021.[2]

To date, the Russian authorities have not paid the just satisfaction awarded by the Court in any of the cases nor provided an action plan setting out any planned concrete measures. They have, however, submitted a number of communications in which they have underlined that the European Court’s attribution to Russia of responsibility for violations which took place on the territory of another State created serious problems of implementation. According to the authorities, they have applied significant efforts to find acceptable solutions to these problems, by organising round tables, consultations and conferences to discuss issues related to the European Court’s case law on the extraterritorial responsibility of states. In addition, reference was made to the work being carried out in the framework of the group DH-SYSC-II under the auspices of the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH). The authorities also expressed the view that a further detailed consideration by the Court of the current situation in the Transnistrian region was necessary to resolve the relevant problems and informed the Committee that to this end they have submitted information and analysis to the Court in the framework of new communicated cases.

In the most recent communication dated 14 April 2021 (DH-DD(2021)398), the authorities report that they continue to make efforts to find acceptable solutions, mentioning notably the activities listed in their previous submissions. They also refer to the information they have submitted to the Court in the framework of the new communicated cases and note that in December 2020 they proposed to the Court to engage experts to conduct an independent assessment of the situation in Transnistria.

In a Rule 9.2 communication of 27 April 2021 (DH-DD(2021)482), the NGO Promo-LEX touches upon the lack of progress in the implementation of individual measures, noting also that some applicants have died, while some others have left the Republic of Moldova. The communication further underlines that payment of the just satisfaction would be the simplest action, not requiring any analytical and research efforts. Referring to the continued nature of the systemic problems revealed in the judgments, Promo-LEX also presents a list of recommended general measures. Finally the NGO calls upon the Committee to request that the Russian authorities pay the just satisfaction and present a concrete action plan, as well as to use additional measures at the Committee’s disposal such as examination of this group at each of its DH meetings and invitation of the Chair to write a letter to Ministry of Justice of Russian Federation.

Analysis by the Secretariat

The recent communication provided by the authorities describing their efforts aimed at finding an acceptable response for the execution of these judgments does not substantially differ from the information submitted prior to the Committee’s previous recent considerations of this group of cases. It is to be recalled that the Committee has already examined this information and, while the explanations on the efforts to reach a common understanding as to the scope of the execution measures were noted, the Committee did not consider that they could be perceived as concrete measures towards the execution of the judgments in this group.

The Committee could therefore once more deeply deplore that the victims have still not benefitted from any form of redress for the violations incurred, including the payment of just satisfaction, and firmly insist on the unconditional obligation of every respondent State, under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention, to abide by each and every final judgment in cases to which it is a party, including by paying any just satisfaction awarded by the Court.

Given the long time which has now elapsed since the first judgment in this group of cases became final, and the failure of the four interim resolutions so far adopted by the Committee to elicit an acceptable response, the Committee may wish to invite the Secretary General to write a letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, to underline both the fundamental importance of the right to education and the unconditional obligation to abide by the judgments of the Court, including by paying the applicants the just satisfaction awarded in the judgments concerning these cases.

Finally, it is proposed to the Committee to resume its examination of this group of cases at the December 2021 DH meeting and to decide, should no tangible progress as regards execution measures have been achieved by then, to consider all appropriate means at its disposal to secure the execution of the judgments in this group.

Financing assured: YES